When w11 announced that they were adding native support for rar, 7z, etc, it occurred to me that android also doesn’t support these and I found it really weird

  • 9point6@lemmy.worldEnglish
    3·
    3 days ago

    We’re talking about Android, unrar doesn’t have anything to do with this really.

    RAR is and will continue to be a proprietary format with an owner who can seek royalties.

    It’s like saying Google should stop licensing MPEG because ffmpeg exists—it simply doesn’t work like that

    • woelkchen@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      3 days ago

      We’re talking about Android, unrar doesn’t have anything to do with this really.

      The entire topic is about RAR archive support on Android, so of course the freely available source code of unrar, released by the RAR developer himself, has absolutely to do with everything here.

      RAR is and will continue to be a proprietary format with an owner who can seek royalties.

      Nope, unrar’s source code is free, released by RAR’s developer.

      It’s like saying Google should stop licensing MPEG because ffmpeg exists—it simply doesn’t work like that

      Nope, it absolutely isn’t like that. You just have no clue at all.

         Unrar source may be used in any software to handle RAR archives
   without limitations free of charge, but cannot be used to re-create
   the RAR compression algorithm, which is proprietary. Distribution
   of modified Unrar source in separate form or as a part of other
   software is permitted, provided that it is clearly stated in
   the documentation and source comments that the code may not be used
   to develop a RAR (WinRAR) compatible archiver.

      It’s not FOSS, given that it comes with the provision that no RAR compressor can be created based on unrar source code but for browsing and extracting RAR archives, the unrar source code as is is absolutely fine.

      • 9point6@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        3 days ago

        Ah fair play, I didn’t realise unrar was from the same guy, cheers for the extra context.

        So I guess we go back to what else it could be:

        • The licence could still be an issue as it’s not FOSS and parts of android are, so I guess that could prevent its inclusion if it’s incompatible with existing licences
        • The licence could also be an issue in terms of wanting feature parity with zip support, which would include creation of archives.
        • As I mentioned before, the percentage of users who are interacting with non-zip archives locally on their devices is a pretty small percentage. It may be on the backlog, but it’s not going to be far from the bottom in priority.
        • How many of the use cases are not served by the third party app ecosystem sufficiently that it would benefit inclusion in the actual OS and the extra maintenance that would entail
        • RAR is an outdated format and in decline at this point, there are better options to add before getting to it
        • Let’s also address the elephant in the room regarding the last point—I don’t think I’ve seen RARs used regularly outside of piracy in quite some time. If that’s the main use case, Google is not going to be bothered about supporting it.

        There’s probably other reasons I’ve not thought of, but just a couple of the above are enough to explain it IMO